TO WHAT EXTENT WAS BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY A SUCCESS IN THE YEARS 1865 TO 1872?

Authors Avatar

to what extent was British foreign policy a success in the years 1865 to 1872?

While Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Palmerston, he was greatly opposed to Palmerston’s aggressive foreign policy, including the use of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ to protect British interests and vaunt British naval superiority. As such, Gladstone pursued a policy of peace and understanding in foreign affairs. One interpretation of this approach to foreign affairs is that avoid conflict was beneficial in a variety ways; another interpretation is that this passiveness was more destructive than constructive.

 The former interpretation (that Gladstone’s foreign policy was successful) is supported firstly by the fact that Britain was not involved in any conflicts during his first ministry. Not only did this ensure that resources were not wasted on needless wars, but it also ensured the maintenance of domestic order as it enabled reductions in income tax in 1874, reductions in government spending. Thus it can be seen that Gladstone’s policy of ‘peace’ supported his aims at ‘retrenchment’ and ‘reform’ and so, in terms of Gladstone’s own aims, his policy of peace and understanding was successful. The maintenance of good trade relations was dependent on the diplomacy Gladstone exhibited (seen through his support of a ‘concert of Europe’), another reason why his approach to foreign policy could be considered a success. Here, his policy of peace supports another of his aims: free trade. This was a crucial factor in the economic prosperity Britain enjoyed in the latter part of the 19th Century, and shows success for Gladstone as a result of his diplomatic approach to foreign policy. Another reason why Gladstone’s foreign policy could be judged to be successful was the very fact that it was unpopular. Gladstone did not pander to the demands of the public as Palmerston did and Disraeli would. While Palmerston was an opportunist, seeing foreign policy as a tool to distract the masses regardless of cost, Gladstone was more focused on peace and stability. Gladstone’s policy showed him to be responsible, a man of solid principle with consistent aims. His unaggressive stance benefited the nation in the long-term despite alienating the public, in a similar fashion to his reforms. A final reason why Gladstone’s foreign policy could be deemed to be successful is that he did intervene when necessary, in a firm but inexpensive fashion. A good example of this is his intervention in the Franco-Prussian War, where he secured an agreement from both sides to respect Belgian neutrality in line with the 1839 Treaty of London. Another example of Gladstone’s willingness to act decisively is his decision to send a military expedition to deal with the Ashanti when they threatened the British West African colony of Gold Coast: this action actually resulted in the expansion of the British Empire, as the Ashanti nation was taken by the expedition. This shows that Gladstone intervened when necessary, protecting British interests with dignity and minimal expense. That said, it is still clear that Gladstone was allowing Britain’s grip on colonies such as Canada and New Zealand loosen, something which caused no small amount of consternation amongst the public. However, by withdrawing British troops from both of these colonies (and considering the removal of troops from unprofitable colonies such as The Gambia), Gladstone was again working at ‘retrenchment’ while acting diplomatically by ending the revolts. It can be said that Gladstone successfully observed a balance between economic prudence through emollient diplomacy and decisive, necessary action, fulfilling all of his primary aims through foreign policy. His minimal involvement in foreign affairs allowed him to excel domestically. As he said in 1879 in a speech in West Calder, Scotland: “Here is my first principle of foreign policy: good government at home.”

Join now!

However, another interpretation of Gladstone’s foreign policy is that it made Britain appear weak, conceding far too much to foreign rivals. The first factor supporting this is the fact that many of his decisions were met with great public disapproval, with ‘The Times’ labelling his foreign policy as “demoralising”. The ‘Alabama’ Award of 1872 (where the USA demanded £9 million compensation from Britain for indirect intervention in the American Civil War) is a good example of an incident which was deeply unpopular in Britain; many felt that Britain had not broken neutrality as had been accused. Furthermore, Britain dropped any ...

This is a preview of the whole essay